I
am
sending
you
the
information
I
have
gathered
on
wind
power
and
the
associated
issues.
I
am
hoping
Wyoming
will
stop
or
at
least
limit
the
damage
done
by
the
unregulated
growth
of
wind
power.

Issues

Property
rights:

There
is
an
illusion
that
Americans
have
unlimited
property
rights
and
to
abridge
those
is
somehow
wrong.
Putting
up
300
ft
towers
with
spinning
blades
does
not
just
affect
the
property
owner-it
affects
everyone
near
the
property.
(See
printout)
The
closer
to
the
property,
the
more
the
effect.
I
cannot
put
a
300
ft
tower
on
my
property-there
are
county
laws
and
covenants
that
don't
allow
this.
I
cannot
open
a
hog
feed
lot
if
I
want-again,
prohibited.
Prohibiting
wind
turbines
is
no
different.

Wyoming
has
zoning
laws
in
many
counties.
One
cannot
build
a
Walmart
warehouse
on
their
back
20
acres
if
they
live
in
a
rural
residential
area.
Wind
turbines
are
not
farms-we
don't
grow
them.
Treat
them
like
any
other
industrial
site..

Wyoming
does
not
want
to
discourage
industry.
However,
if
a
large
group
of
ranchers
banded
together
and
built
400
foot
towers
to
broadcast
to
outer
space,
would
this
be
considered
a
really
good
idea?
Would
it
be
allowed?
What
if
the
federal
government
funded
it?
Is
it
justifiable
to
have
thousands
of
towers
all
over
the
state
to
communicate
with
outer
space?
No,
wind
turbines
are
not
communicating
with
outer
space,
but
there
is
much
disagreement
over
whether
wind
turbines
have
any
function
beyond
large
chunks
of
metal
and
concrete
that
destroy
habitat
and
eat
money.

Actual
value
of
turbines:

If
my
figures
are
right,
between
the
11
towers
next
to
Casper
and
the
turbines
north
of
Casper
in
Converse
county,
the
11
towers
are
to
produce
16.5
mw
and
the
ones
in
Converse
county,
99mw.
The
oldest
unit
at
Dave
Johnson
power
plants
produces
114mw.
So
in
the
next
6
or
12
months,
that
turbine
will
shut
down,
right?
I
mean,
if
we
can't
shut
down
a
dirty
coal
plant's
turbine
when
we
have
the
equivalent
in
wind
power,
what
is
the
value?
No
excuses
accepted-it's
yes/no
answer.
Either
we
shut
down
part
of
a
plant
or
the
turbines
are
not
as
advertised
and
should
be
investigated
for
taking
subsidies
under
false
pretenses.
And
stop
putting
them
up
if
they
don't
allow
us
to
close
power
plants.

The
reality
is
I
have
not
found
reports
of
coal
power
plants
being
replaced
by
wind
power,
even
in
countries
with
many,
many
turbines.
Canada
is
attempting
to
shut
down
it's
coal
fired
power
plants,
but
their
replacements
are
nuclear,
hydro,
biomass,
etc.
Maybe
there
are
a
couple
of
genuine
closings,
but
they
are
apparently
not
common.
I
believe
that
if
wind
power
could
do
what
it's
advertised
to
do,
Europe
should
be
cutting
way
back
on
coal
fired
plants
and
be
bragging
about
it.
Yet
I
find
nothing
on
how
many
coal
fire
plants
have
been
replaced
and
several
stories
on
new
power
plants
(some
natural
gas,
some
nuclear)
being
built
in
China,
Europe
and
Canada.

Environmental
damage:

The
wind
turbine
industry
has
apparently
dealt
a
death
blow
to
the
idea
of
biodiversity
and
the
saving
of
old
growth
forest.
Interestingly
enough,
biodiversity
was
often
screamed
out
as
a
reason
to
not
drill
for
oil.
We
would
damage
the
fragile
ecosystem-the
Rock
Springs
area
and
the
Jack
Morrow
hills
were
singled
out
as
someplace
we
needed
to
protect
from
oil
and
gas
development.
In
Canada,
wind
turbines
can
be
built
where
houses
cannot.
Trees
are
routinely
cut
for
roads
and
turbines
along
ridge
tops
in
the
eastern
US.
Mining
in
the
same
area
is
vehemently
opposed.

Comparisons
between
oil
and
wind
environmental
impact
can
be
difficult
to
illustrate.
Skytruth,
a
website
that
monitors
environmental
damage
from
oil
and
gas
curiously
lacks
photos
of
large
wind
turbine
sites
going
in
and
what
it
looks
like
after
installation.
The
above
photos
show
an
installed
wind
plant
in
California,
an
oil
field
in
Western
Wyoming,
and
two
photos
of
installation
of
wind
turbines.

Turbines
vs
drill
rigs?
Looks
a
lot
alike
to
me.
Roads,
towers,
noise,
pollution
from
maintenance
vehicles,
etc.
Except
the
wind
turbines
are
much
taller
and
stand
out
against
the
environment
more.

Having
lived
on
a
road
that
leads
both
to
an
oilfield
and
a
wind
turbine
site,
I
have
noted
differences.
The
oilfield
was
pretty
much
established
and
the
traffic
associated
with
it
was
light.
At
first,
we
could
even
drive
out
and
see
the
pumpjacks.
Later,
the
road
was
marked
"Private".
The
wind
turbine
site
is
recent.
During
installation
20
to
25
vehicles
went
by
every
hour
for
over
3
months-trucks,
heavy
equipment,
etc.
Now,
there
is
not
much
traffic,
but
the
wind
turbine
site
has
a
huge
electric
gate
across
the
road.
It
is
interesting
that
the
oil
field
was
content
with
a
sign
but
the
environmentally
friendly,
safe
turbines
require
a
huge
gate
to
keep
people
out.
The
gate
is
powered
off
the
county
road
power
line,
not
the
turbines.....The
Casper
Wind
Project
(in
Evansville)
is
also
fenced
and
locked.
As
more
wind
plants
go
in,
hunting
will
be
curtailed
and
the
gains
made
through
the
Access
program
won't
last.
The
state
can't
afford
the
$180,000
and
up
that
60
wind
turbines
can
bring
in
so
land
will
go
to
wind
turbines,
not
hunters.
That
would
seem
a
step
backward
for
Wyoming
sportsmen.
(It
seems
unlikely
that
hunting
can
ever
be
allowed
among
turbines-too
much
liability.)

While
there
are
often
quotes
of
the
turbines
lasting
20
years
and
not
requiring
much
maintenance,
the
Medicine
Bow
wind
turbines
are
actually
deteriorating
after
only
5
years.
Since
it
went
on
line,
there
have
been
30
major
outages.
Turbines
will
go
off
warranty
in
2011.
In
addition,
the
article
I
found
this
information
in
contains
statements
on
utilities
buying
into
wind
projects
in
other
states
for
Renewable
Energy
Credits.
I
have
heard
that
the
turbines
near
Hanna
are
owned
by
a
California
firm
and
will
not
be
hooked
up
to
transmission
lines.
The
turbines
just
fill
the
utility's
REC
credits.
If
that
is
true,
California
is
using
our
state
for
it's
REC's
so
California
doesn't
have
to
have
its
landscapes
disturbed.
So
what
does
that
make
Wyoming?
A
dumping
ground?
It
appears
we
are
an
excellent
place
to
exploit.
The
excise
tax
idea
is
a
good
one,
but
if
the
turbines
by
Hanna
are
"decorative"
and
not
functional,
I
am
thinking
there
would
be
no
tax.
That
would
make
Wyoming
a
cheap
dumping
ground.

A
Minnesota
wind
firm
complained
in
the
Star
Tribune
that
an
excise
tax
would
be
too
much
of
a
burden
for
his
firm.
Actually,
Minnesota
is
revamping
it's
tax
on
wind
turbines
and
Wyoming
is
looking
much
cheaper
to
him
than
Minnesota.
According
to
the
Worthington
Daily
Globe,
Minnesota
is
considering
taxing
the
entire
value
of
the
turbine,
not
the
output.
Maybe
Minnesota
has
the
right
idea.
Tax
the
turbines
like
any
other
real
estate
in
an
industrial
setting.
Maybe
the
rancher
should
get
taxed
at
industrial
rates,
too.
It's
no
different
than
putting
in
a
warehouse,
a
factory,
etc.
Taxes
should
be
equally
applied.

Large
quantities
of
concrete,
aluminum,
copper
,etc
are
required
to
build
wind
turbines.
Environmentalists
have
opposed
gravel
pits
and
mining
and
still
raise
objections
to
these
activities.
There
were
protests
against
a
copper
mine
in
Utah.
However,
the
gravel
and
other
materials
have
to
come
from
somewhere.
So
as
more
and
more
turbines
are
installed
and
maintenance
ongoing,
more
and
more
gravel
pits
will
be
needed
and
mining,
whether
in
a
third
world
country
where
we
can
pretend
it's
not
a
problem
or
in
our
country.
Chemicals
are
also
necessary
for
production
of
blades,
plus
transportation
of
turbine
parts
to
the
turbine
sites
requires
large
vehicles
and
a
great
deal
of
fuel,
with
the
associated
carbon
dioxide
emissions.

One
common
objection
to
oil
development
was
that
it
made
people
rich.
Yet
there
has
been
little
objection
to
wind
developers
paying
up
to
$15,000
per
turbine
lease
to
ranchers
and
farmers.
A
rancher
that
allows
30
wind
turbines
stands
to
make
$450,000,
which
is
a
fair
sum
of
money
with
no
real
investment
or
labor
required.
As
one
Texas
rancher
noted
"the
wind
farm
is
total
profit
without
any
work."
If
someone
leasing
to
Halliburton
said
that,
there
would
be
a
mass
outcry.
Plus,
there
are
a
lot
of
subsidies
to
wind,
so
tax
money
pays
the
rancher
to
profit
without
work.

I
wonder
how
the
millions
of
people
out
of
work
feel
about
their
taxes
paying
someone
six
figures
a
year
for
doing
nothing.
In
actuality,
wind
turbines
can
make
near
millionaires
(or
multimillionaires,
if
you
use
the
Al
Gore
method
of
adding
all
years
income
together)
out
of
anyone
who
owns
enough
acres
in
a
windy
area.
Finally,
environmentalists
can
be
rich
without
work
the
same
as
they
despised
and
damned
the
oil
companies
for.

If
wind
energy
is
the
way
to
go
and
developers
are
proud
of
what
they
do,
why
does
Pathfinder-A
Community
of
Wind
show
the
historic
Pathfinder
Ranch
as
it
is
today,
complete
with
a
cowboy,
horse
and
dog,
instead
of
an
artist's
rendering
of
what
the
project
will
look
like?
It
should
not
be
necessary
to
lie
(which
is
what
this
is-an
attempt
to
deceive
people
concerning
the
actual
outcome)
if
the
turbines
are
so
wonderful
for
the
environment?

Windmills
may
make
people
think
they
are
doing
all
that
is
necessary
to
save
the
planet-and
encourage
them
to
buy
cheap
merchandise,
fill
landfills,
and
waste
in
other
areas.
There
is
already
a
tendency
to
think
CO2
is
the
only
thing
that
harms
the
environment.
If
you
use
CFL
bulbs
and
drive
a
hybrid,
you
can
waste
all
you
want
in
other
areas
and
avoid
reducing
electricity
usage
on
a
large
scale.
Species
can
be
destroyed
and
open
spaces
and
even
forests
can
sacrificed
for
carbon
dioxide
emission
reduction.
Or
for
the
money
in
carbon
dioxide
reduction,
most
likely.
Real
solutions
get
squeezed
out
and
billions
of
dollars
wasted
on
marginal
solutions.

I
cannot
help
but
look
at
the
mess
we
are
making
with
these
turbines
and
think
back
to
the
government's
great
idea
to
give
away
farm
land
in
Kansas
back
in
the
thirties.
The
damage
from
that
miscalculation
was
mind-boggling.
Sure,
we
think
turbines
are
at
least
marginally
safe
(large
electric
locked
gate
not
withstanding).
Yet,
the
government
was
quite
sure
you
could
farm
in
Kansas
in
a
drought....

Wind
plants
might
be
a
source
of
income
for
Wyoming,
but
if
we
are
going
to
give
up
open
spaces
and
become
just
another
industrial
state
and
crowded
urban
landscape
(as
often
seems
to
be
the
goal
of
many
politicians
and
developers),
let's
go
all
the
way
and
legalize
gambling
and
prostitution.
Forget
wind-there's
more
money
in
vices
and
if
we're
going
to
destroy
the
land
for
money,
let's
get
as
much
as
we
can.

Or
maybe
we
can
actually
be
"Wyoming,
like
no
place
else
on
earth".
It's
up
to
you
and
our
other
representatives
to
make
the
decisions
that
will
determine
what
Wyoming
becomes.
Unique,
or
mundane.....